What should China's military research focus on in the future?

pla101prc said:

rommel asymmetrical warfare is not something you are supposed to be prepared for. if you were already prepared then its not asymmetric lol. defining asymmetric warfare as anything not conventional prolly isnt very accurate, and i dont think asymmetric warfare has to be something remote like spec ops or insurgency, the US attack on iraq was as asymmetric as the subsequent insurgency against the US forces. i'd consider German armour vs Polish calvary pretty damn asymmetric, the same with NATO bombing of kosovo. to me asymmetric means there is a fundamental difference in the method of combat employed by both sides. the US forces has been fighting asymmetric warfare for quite sometime. if there is anyone that knows asymmetric warfare it'd be the americans. however America's asymmetric warfare was almost purely based on technological advantage, while its opponents must employ very primitive methods and equipments, and surprisingly achieved greater results than a professional army. there is a theory that says if your army is a generation ahead of your enemy, then you can beat him pretty easily, but if you are three generations ahead of your enemy, then you are gonna be in big trouble, because that's quite a propitious condition for waging asymmetric warfare.

Click to expand...

Well, I know that asymetrical warfare having a different definition depending of the point of view and the author. But this doesn't change the fact that a country can always prepared itself for. Currently, if you had read the Canadian First Defense Strategy, page 9, it says

Provide deployed personnel with the right mix of equipment so they can take part, on their own or with allies, in the full spectrum of operations – from countering asymmetric threats like improvised explosive devices, to contributing to reconstruction efforts in a harsh and unforgiving environment.

Click to expand...

Terrorism, insurgency warfare and guerilla are considered asymetrical warfare by the Department of National Defense.

rommel said:

Well, I know that asymetrical warfare having a different definition depending of the point of view and the author. But this doesn't change the fact that a country can always prepared itself for. Currently, if you had read the Canadian First Defense Strategy, page 9, it says


Terrorism, insurgency warfare and guerilla are considered asymetrical warfare by the Department of National Defense.

Click to expand...

in terms of policy making obviously you'd try to minimize your exposal to those threats. but in practice you cannot achieve such state where you are immune to every aspect of asymmetric warfare. the whole point of asymmetric warfare is to attack where you are unprepared, how do you prepare the unprepared? you cant have a flawless defence. so doesnt matter how "prepared" you are, the best you can do is to limit the enemy's options, dont expect to be immune to this stuff.

pla101prc said:

in terms of policy making obviously you'd try to minimize your exposal to those threats. but in practice you cannot achieve such state where you are immune to every aspect of asymmetric warfare. the whole point of asymmetric warfare is to attack where you are unprepared, how do you prepare the unprepared? you cant have a flawless defence. so doesnt matter how "prepared" you are, the best you can do is to limit the enemy's options, dont expect to be immune to this stuff.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with what you're saying, I never said that China need to be immune to asymmetric warfare, but she can have a better preparation that what she currently have. I still think that with today's need in defense, the 3 points I have posted earlier (information dominance, joint-arms capabilities and asymmetrical) are the most important points to research/develop.

Strategic weapons that you have mention before may serve also as deterrent, but I believe that today's need, are slowly outclassing them, making them more and more obsolete.

rommel said:

I totally agree with what you're saying, I never said that China need to be immune to asymmetric warfare, but she can have a better preparation that what she currently have. I still think that with today's need in defense, the 3 points I have posted earlier (information dominance, joint-arms capabilities and asymmetrical) are the most important points to research/develop.

Strategic weapons that you have mention before may serve also as deterrent, but I believe that today's need, are slowly outclassing them, making them more and more obsolete.

Click to expand...

I pity anyone who tries "asymmetric warfare" against the PLA on chinese soil. Aysmmetric warfare relies on two factors: popular support, and advantageous terrain. You need popular support in order to hide among the populace and to recruit from them. You need advantageous terrain for cover and ambush.

What chinese populace is going to support a foreign terrorist organization against its own army? Even if some ethnic minority group (such as militant Uighurs) dares to do so, the Chinese government has not compunction about using extreme measures to crush any dissent. With their miniscule population compared to the Han majority, any ethnic minority seeking to wage a terrorism campaign against the Chinese government is seeking suicide.

The Americans are such easy prey to asymmetric warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan because of two factors: their relative lack of manpower, and their reluctance to use extreme measures against known populace groups that harbor insurgents.

rommel said:

Asymmetrical warfare designate any kind of warfare which are not conventional. It's a very vast and complex domain, and no country is well prepared against all of its form. Even countries very capable of fighting asymmetrical warfare are vulnerable because it has so many different faces. For exemple, the US Military had learned lessons from the Vietnam War about guerilla harassement, but they were unprepared for urban insurgency. Or the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet-Cong, who has a good amount of knowledge concerning asymmetrical warfare, had some hard time countering US Army Special Force and US Navy S.E.A.L. commando raid behind their own line during the Vietnam War.

China might be quite capable. But is she prepared against any commando raid or deep line inflitration data collection/target designation by a potential ennemy ? Does she have a counter-insurgency program ready ? She's maybe prepared against the first part, but surely not the second. We haven't heard about the developement of the IED detection system or radio/cell signal jamming system which are crucial into counter-insurgency type of warfare. And there's no sign also of the development of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle. So, those 2 points make me believe that she can still research on asymetrical warfare, especially when strategists and military planners thinks that most war in the next 2 decades at least will be fight that way.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on how no nation is prepared for every war, which is why adaptation is critical for mission success.

My history may be incorrect, but I recall the US military struggled to win against massive guerrilla warfare in the Vietnam War, despite how the US used specialized and secretive military units during many wars (including WWII and the Korean War, which led up to the Vietnam War),thus the US military upgraded the Underwater Demolition Team into the Navy SEALs.

Concerning espionage and target acquisition: no nation is well-prepared against this except the most isolated nations. The US spends LOTS of money to defeat enemy espionage and enemy target acquisition, but the US is still vulnerable to it. Do I really have to give you recent examples to prove how the US is still vulnerable to enemy spies and enemy attacks?

Police-state Soviet Union/Russia struggled to deal with spies and internal attacks when the Soviet Union/Russia faced determined enemies. China will suffer the same fate when it faces determined enemies. The best a nation can do against determined spies and internal attacks is to minimize them through various methods: political, economic, cultural, legal/moral, law enforcement, and military.

Last time I checked, the US military was not ready to fight against IEDs at the start of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. The US military has been adapting its strategies, tactics, and technologies against IEDs, and continues to adapt. The US military seems to favor helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to negate IEDs, but having a large footprint using airplanes requires abundant airplanes and robust manufacturing, maintenance, and repair, which requires $$$$$.

China will probably not fight a war the same way the US fought/fights the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the Pakistan War, and Afghanistan War from the setup to the beginning, through the middle, and up to the very end. China's political setup and follow-through for war will probably be different than the US. The same goes with economic, legal/moral, cultural, and international preparation and changes. All of these factors can greatly change how the war is fought by all competing factions.

solarz said:

I pity anyone who tries "asymmetric warfare" against the PLA on chinese soil. Aysmmetric warfare relies on two factors: popular support, and advantageous terrain. You need popular support in order to hide among the populace and to recruit from them. You need advantageous terrain for cover and ambush.

What chinese populace is going to support a foreign terrorist organization against its own army? Even if some ethnic minority group (such as militant Uighurs) dares to do so, the Chinese government has not compunction about using extreme measures to crush any dissent. With their miniscule population compared to the Han majority, any ethnic minority seeking to wage a terrorism campaign against the Chinese government is seeking suicide.

The Americans are such easy prey to asymmetric warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan because of two factors: their relative lack of manpower, and their reluctance to use extreme measures against known populace groups that harbor insurgents.

Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic with the last paragraph? If not, then read my response. If yes, then I wasted my time with the below response.

The Middle Easterners would tell you a different measure. Iraqis, Afghanis, and other Middle Easterners have long complained about the vicious military policies the US has brought to the Middle East.

The US has been assisting Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern nations. These Middle Eastern nations have waged very bloody and devastating wars against their own people and other people.

Read about the massive damage Iraq and Iran suffered when they fought each other and the US supported and armed both sides. Read about the destructive capability of US cruise missiles, air-dropped bombs, armor-piercing rounds, the controversial usage of DU ammunition and armor, and so forth. Iraq has suffered enormous civilian and collateral damage from the first Iraq War in the 1990s, from the lengthy economic sanctions, and from today's war. Iraq is clearly not the only example. America's military operations in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, today's Afghanistan War, and other covert battles were very destructive to civilians in various ways: physical, political, economic, cultural, etc.

I would not want the US military dropping a 100-lb bomb or 200-lb bomb with laser-point accuracy onto my neighbor's house. It may be a weak bomb for the military, but it's still very powerful by civilian standards. Assuming I wasn't visiting my neighbor during the time of the attack, my hearing would probably be permanently damaged, the shock wave and flying debris could damage/cripple/kill surrounding people and belongings, the high-temp reactions could be poisonous, and the probable fire could spread. I hope my local police officers continue to minimize the use of firearms, especially when it involves armor-piercing, DU rounds in fully automatic guns. US wars, like most wars, are very destructive.

The US or any nuclear power could nuke Iraq and Afghanistan, but the domestic community and international community would be shocked, to say the VERY least.

The US military is incredibly powerful and it has no problems releasing its wrath upon its enemies, but the US military and political system is lousy when it comes to rebuilding nations. The track record across the globe is pathetic. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are the exception, not the norm.

technically every single war that has been fought have some degree of asymmetric attributes to it. because every army has its strength and weaknesses. to me kosovo is a classic case for asymmetric warfare. NATO had total air superiority and bombed the crap out of the serbians, while serbians couldnt fight back, but somehow managed to minimize the damage using the most primitive means. for example they made a large metal cube, and put a campfire inside it to imitate a tank's heat signature. these most primitive methods actually worked so well against the NATO airforce that most of the targets they hit were decoys. the war itself was such a mismatch, but the fact that both sides employed asymmetric warfare, and maximized its effectiveness, makes this war a textbook case for this topic.

solarz your definition of asymmetric warfare is too narrow, asymmetric warfare isnt just confined to guerilla warfare. every single army in the world should have the ability to wage asymmtretic warfare against any foe. you just have to use your imagination and be creative about it, germans had armour and u-boat, soviets/russians had landmass, americans had information tech and airforce, iraqis had IED's. so its not just guerilla warfare though its one of the classic asymmetric methods.

1: Concerning chinese Military bases, I daresay Iran would be quite happy about one. It would create one area which Israel/USA most certainly arent going to attack.
By allowing someone else military base to be on your soil, you are effectivly surrendering some of your souvereignity, and making yourself into an accomplice of aggresivve wars of the military base country, however, that country is likely to back you if you are attacked.
Since China has a much less Imperialist agressive history than the USA in the post WW2 world, I would argue that many nations would not be as adverse to a Chinese base as one may think. I believe that, at the moment, China does not exactly wish to be dragged into combat by having bases in lets say, Iran and Serbia.

2: Concerning assymtric warfare:
"Give us Tanks and Jets and we will use them" Leader of the Algerian Liberation movement when asked why they used bombs.
Secondly, counterinsurgency operation are important for people that wish to occupy areas that dislike them.
Apart from Xinjiang and Tibet (and maybe Taiwan, although Taipeh seems to be going the way of Hongkong), which both have very significant populations loyal to beijing, China does not have much need for such things.
Who else do they wish to occupy?
Japan? Russia? India? All of them have significant alliances, and as a matter of fact can be considered to be Nuclear. Also, they would most likely fight in a conventional matter (and Russia may even win/not loose that one).
Vietnam? Taiwan? Korea? Again, Korea propably is nuclear, Taiwan is easier to buy than to conquer, and no amount of counter insurgency training will make occupying Vietnam particularly worthwhile.
Occupying Pakistan or Afghanistan in case of a total US failure could be a scenario, but then the Taliban would annoy roughly everyone else much mroe than they would annoy China.


If I would be the "Chinese gouverment" my investments would be: 1: Electronic/Information warfare
2: Anti Satellite Warfare (things that scare the USA are nice, and neither of these things are particularly expensive as far as I know)

To the best of my knowledge, China wishes to peacefully build up itself. The greatest threat to such peace are:
1: North Korea, a leader who, lets say his rationality is in doubt, and has Nukes and sits on a heavily militarized border.
2: Afghanistan/Pakistan. Although the tide of religious warfare is more likely to sweep westwards, the most likely opponents do not have a lot to loose.
3: The USA/UK. Both activly try to subvert Chinas control on its border provinces, both are nuclear, both would likely go through great lengths to create trouble.

I do not see Russia, India or Vietnam as threats.
Russia will fight fiercly if attacked, but with a declining population, any offensive moves by them are incredibly unlikely.
India is, demographically, more threatening than Russia (but weaker in a war), however, rationality will likely prevent any outright conflict.
A western Collapse in Afghanistan/Pakistan would threaten India much mroe than China.
Vietnam may want a couple of Spratly Islands, not conflict with China.

I really don't believe that China could afford to install a military in foreign soil. Simply because it's very expensive and takes a huge amount of resources. In peace time, to keep a force effective, you need for every single man in foreign country, 3 or 4 in your own soil to create this whole logistic back-up. And in wartime, this number can grow up to 1 for 10. Because, a deployed force need supply, replacement part, replacement personnel, repair and maintenance, there are tons of paperwork, etc. It's not viable, especially when China is trying to catch with the other great power in military technology.

I know that there is a dispute on the meaning of "asymmetric warfare". There's different definitions used by authors, which makes having a "good" one, pretty complicated. Even though, I think we can put the exact definition aside and use it as a general term. I think that any country can prepare for asymmetric warfare. I know that I gave example of counter-insurgency and special operations as type of asymmetric warfare, but I also had in mind something different. I was thinking about peacekeeping operation (like UN's Blue Helmet). Especially for China who's starting to build international credibility with international commitment, this is a very important point. Recently she has deployed PAP in Haiti support the UN's peacekeepers, and even closer, the deployment of warship for counter-piracy in Somalia. I think that China's involvement will be growing, and she might need to deployed some force in the next one or two decades. Those kind of operation require a special training, and different intervention method. So I think that by developing asymmetrical warfare, she can gain experience for peacekeeping operation.

Anti-satellite weapon ? I don't believe that threatening the US is useful, I don't believe of ANY possibilities of warfare between great powers. The modern political society and international actors is so complex that this cannot happen. And China has always ask for a ban of space weapon....

China's attitude towards space weaponization is the same as nuclear weapons. its only deterrence anyways, and frankly China is going down a similar path as the US...increasingly reliant on space, though not as far as the latter cuz China does not have global military commitments.

the recent unveiling of airforce policies (incorporating space elements into airforce operations) is a good sign. i mean the infrastructures are already there, recce sattellites, coms satellites, GPS, now its time to make use of these gadgets and build a highly interconnected system which allows gathering and distribution of information more available to every single fighting unit. i find that everything works the same way as an infantry section, its just for airforce you need better technology to achieve that.